Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
(December 4, 2016 at 7:03 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: I don't have any contentions about what has been observed in the field or in the lab, in regards to evolution. I don't think the predictions, models, and evidence (from which inferences are made) are as strong as is often made out however.
Well there's no accounting for your inability to understand fact. Here's a site which barely scratches the surface of what evolutionary theory has predicted, and has been subsequently been found to be right.
The models predictions and evidence for evolution are without doubt some of the strongest in science It's the stupidity the ID and creationism that fails because it has none of the above
Road your denial doesn't change that
As for teach the controversy it's just a back door way to sneak religion into schools without admitting it's religion it has nothing to do with critical thinking and never has been and even it ID fanatics were censer (which they are not) there is already a means within science if ID wants respect it should use it
Seek strength, not to be greater than my brother, but to fight my greatest enemy -- myself.
(November 29, 2016 at 1:00 pm)Asmodee Wrote: I looked at that page briefly. It's full of shit. The part about "limits" where it claims essentially, "There are limits in what we see today, so those limits must exist throughout all of time" JUST before they start talking about the limits of extrapolation, which they had just used to presume that since human skin color in recorded history varied within a specific set of colors that indicates that it can never, ever, ever vary outside of that specific set for all of eternity, is particularly stupid. They simply picked some data set with known variations and claimed these variations constituted some sort of "limit" which, since we've never seen it be violated, can never be violated. That's not how science works. You don't start with the answer and then find something that supports it. That's religion.
I think that you are missing the point. And as an engineer, I can tell you that there are always limits, that you need to work within. And I don't think that they are saying that it is impossible to be otherwise, but there is a pretty good sample size, to say that in humans; melanin varies skin color within a certain range. If you think otherwise, then the onus is on you, to either provide evidence that it has occured, or show your reasons, that you think it is likely (a just so story, doesn't cut it for me).
What a coincidence. I also have an engineering degree. And mine also isn't in biology or genetics. Electronics for me. Fun fact, electronic engineers have this saying; "If you aren't smart enough to be an electronic engineer, be a mechanical engineer."
The "limits" you are talking about as an engineer, at least in mechanics and electronics, have NOTHING to do with genetics. They are simple and clearly defined. You can't make a part larger than the space which would contain it, for instance. Pretty straight forward. But that is NOT what they are saying. Your response here is just a clever way to try to slightly shift the claim they made to put the burden of proof onto me. But I never said that it could happen because it did, nor did I even say it is likely. I said nothing even REMOTELY close to what you are saying there, and you are SERIOUSLY downplaying what they are saying.
What they are saying is essentially that it is IMPOSSIBLE for humans to be any other color and, as proof, they are showing that humans have never been any other color (not entirely true. We have had orange and even blue people, but their coloration was not due to genetics). What I am saying is that historical precedence is not the same as a "limit". To show that something has never happened does not show that it cannot happen. "Has not" and "can not" are not equivalent.
(December 4, 2016 at 1:52 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: And if you think they are inccorrect to be saying that their are limits to extrapolation, please explain why?
Because only this fringe group, made up of "not geneticists", believe this.
(December 4, 2016 at 1:52 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: I have found often, when engineering machine controls, that a customer wants to make a slight modification. Sometimes it is easy, and sometimes, they do not realize the many, many underlying changes that need to take place for what appears to be a simple change (sometimes, it is easier to start over, than to modify). I do think that he is correct, in that the change being extrapolated from what is seen in natural variations is incorrect and hasn't be demonstrated or justified.
Based on your vast experience in genetics? Being an engineer, your ONLY experience is that of "design". You have no experience or qualifications to speak about genetics.
(December 4, 2016 at 1:52 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote:
Quote:There is no controversy. Evolution is a scientific theory.
There is no controversy among scientists. 99.9% consensus well surpasses the point where there is considered to be any controversy. It is only controversial to literal creationists for whom the science disputes their beliefs. You seem to be confusing "scientific theory" with "absolute indisputable fact". The two are not the same. A scientific theory is not "the way it definitely happened", it's a testable explanation which can make accurate predictions. Electron theory, for example, is likely not perfect, but it is testable and it can make predictions well enough that Intel can design a processor based on how the electrons are predicted to behave. Does that mean all of electrical theory is unquestionable? It certainly does not. In fact, just in my lifetime the electron has been deposed as the smallest particle, now thought to itself be made up of quarks. It wasn't perfect, but it still worked well enough to be used to design amazing things.
The fact of the matter is that evolution is a testable explanation which has been proved to make accurate predictions. Tiktaalik is an example of this. Scientists predicted that if they went to a certain spot on the planet and dug down a certain amount they should find a fossil with features of both fish and amphibians and when they went there and dug they found exactly what evolution predicted would be there. Does this mean the theory of evolution is complete and utterly without error? Of course not. It means that the theory of evolution is the best explanation we currently have. Contrary to the beliefs of the "teach the controversy" crowd, there is no alternative scientific theory. Evolution is it. It beat out all other scientific theories.
Intelligent design is not a scientific theory, it is creationism repackaged. This was proved in the Dover trial. The book, Of Pandas and People, was originally the flagship of intelligent design and during that trial they proved that it started out as a creationist book. Look up "cdesign proponentsists". In one early draft of the book the editor highlighted the word "creationists" and replaced it with "design proponents", but they missed the C at the beginning and ISTS at the end, so the draft said "Cdesign proponentsISTS". And there is only ONE scientist qualified to speak on it academically who I know of who supports intelligent design. That is Michael Behe. During the Dover trial he was forced to admit on the stand that by the definition of "science" he had to use to include intelligent design as being a science, astrology would also be a science. The study of what kind of day I would have based on the stars in the sky on the day I was born is science. Intelligent design is textbook special pleading. We need to lower scientific standards to allow this to be a science because evolution hurts my feelings.
I would highly recommend you watch the following video. It's nearly 2 hours long, but it covers the Dover trial in great detail. It is by Nova and is called Judgement Day: Intelligent Design on Trial. It is an excellent documentary on the Dover v Kitzmiller trial. It gives a pretty good explanation of how science works, why evolution is good science, why intelligent design is not science and it exposes the lies and hypocrisy of ID proponents during the trial. It's a long documentary, but so informative that I have it DVRd and I watch it at least a couple times a year.
By the way, one actual fact you may find interesting, there are two websites which collect signatures (names, at least), one of people who disagree with evolution, the other of people who stand behind it.
The one, "A Dissent from Darwinism", has a lot of names, but also a lot of controversy. Most of the names on it are people who aren't qualified to speak on evolution. Computer scientists, for instance, who don't know anything beyond basic biology and nothing of genetics. Of those who are qualified, a great many of them are on record saying that they have no idea how their name got on that list and they certainly don't agree with it. There are just under 1,000 names. A handful of them, including Michael Behe, are qualified to give an opinion.
The other, Project Steve, is a list of scientists whose name must be Steve or some variant of Steve and who must be qualified to give an opinion on evolution. There are 1,403 names on that very restrictive list.
So there are far more scientists qualified to give an opinion on evolution AND who are named Steve or some variant of the name Steve who stand behind evolution than there are just general people with some degree which technically qualifies them to call themselves a "scientist" who disagree with it. Think about that. Say you just bought a car and you had 2 friends telling you conflicting things about that car. The first friend told you it was a terrible car and he brought you 1,000 people who agreed with him, but of those only a dozen or so actually worked with, or even owned cars. The other friend brought you 1,400 people who said it was a good car, ALL of them actually designed cars for a living and from all the people he could have brought you he brought you ONLY people named Steve. Who would you believe? The guy who brought you 12 experts and a thousand morons or the guy who could bring you SO MANY experts that even though he only picked people named Steve he STILL brought you 400 more people than the other guy?
The teach the controversy movement has nothing to do with science. There is no scientific controversy. The science is settled. The controversy is in public opinion, which means exactly squat to science. And, in fact, one of the hallmarks of a pseudoscience is that its proponents take it directly to the public, bypassing scientific standards. If intelligent design were a science it would be debated among scientists, not forced into high school classes. High school students are not qualified to judge the merit of a scientific theory. Scientists are. The "controversy" is entirely manufactured by the teach the controversy movement. The reason for the controversy is to get religion into schools because it's easier to tell an adult that magic is real if you taught that adult that magic was real from childhood. Children who grow into adults without religious upbringings are less likely to be religious, and that is what this is really all about. Their numbers are falling rapidly and it scares the hell out of them. So they want to plant religion into the minds of our kids so that future numbers aren't so bad. That is what this is really all about. It's not a scientific argument at all. You debate science in scientific circles, not in high schools. Scientists debate science and decide what to believe, not high school students with no scientific training or understanding. So there is no controversy to teach because you don't get to manufacture a controversy and then pretend that you're being treated unfairly if schools don't teach the garbage which can't pass scientific muster along side the real science which did.
I don't deny that the signifigant majority of scientist say that they believe in evolution. And normally in this case, it is not explicit by what they mean by evolution. And I think that there are a number of reasons, for why they might say this. Some have studied the topic, and truly believe they are correct. I think that some are just repeating what they have been taught, and there are some that may fear backlash, from opposing the common dogma of the day.
That is not quite accurate. They don't "believe in evolution". They accept evolution as a valid theory and the best scientific theory currently available to explain changes in life over time. What they mean IS "explicit". They accept the theory of evolution as reality.
I don't think you have the slightest clue how the scientific process works. Scientists don't just "repeat what they are taught". It's not like their schooling in evolution is "evolution is real". They learn why. If they don't understand why then they're useless as scientists because science is about discovery, not repeating beliefs. That's church. The idea that there are scientists out there who fear a backlash and are afraid to speak out is pure fantasy. There was a hole lot of "I think" in those statements. Why? Ask yourself honestly, to you "think" these things because you have seen evidence to suggest these things, or is it simply what you would like to believe? I already know the answer to that. I have looked into this subject in depth and I KNOW that you are wrong.
(December 4, 2016 at 1:52 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: If you would have just said, that it makes accurate predictions, then I probably could of guessed, that you would have mentioned Tiktaalik (either that or it would be talking about evolution that no one questions and is demonstrable). And unfortunately from more recent findings, he is a few million years late, and an ocean or so away from the first tetrapods. I do find that most of the evidence however does boil down to, this kinda looks like this, and therefore common descent. Unless of course, it doesn't fit the model, and walla they look a like because of convergent evolution.
Lol, I get my information from scientists. You get yours from the Discovery Institute. Scientists have a vested interest in the science being correct so that it is useful. The Discovery Institute has a vested interest in a 6 day creation. Which do you think is less biased on the matter of evolution?
(December 4, 2016 at 1:52 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: As to the lists, I think that there only use is to show what people do say they believe X. After that, I am going to look at their reasons, and not argumentum ad populum.
I'm going to squash that bullshit right here. Science IS NOT argumentum ad populum. This is the way the scientific process works, and it DOES WORK. Scientific consensus is not arguing that something is correct simply because most scientists believe it, it is saying that it has passed rigorous scientific testing. It is a PROVEN METHOD of discovery. Argumentum ad populum refers to people "in general". In fact it literally translates into "appeal to the people", which is EXACTLY what intelligent design proponents are doing.
Quote:What's the difference between most people believe X and scientific consensus which is, at the end of the day, most scientists believe X? Doesn't this make out scientists to be somehow superior to the rest of the population?
There are two significant differences:
Scientific consensus doesn't claim to be true, it claims to be our best understanding currently held by those who study the matter. Scientific claims for truth are always tentative rather than final, even if they are often very impressive tentative claims for truth.
Scientific consensus is built upon a foundation of logic and systematic evidence - the scientific method - rather than popular prejudice. The consensus comes not from blindly agreeing with those in authority, but from having their claims to be thoroughly reviewed and criticised by their peers. (Note that even long-established scientific consensus can be overthrown by better logic and better evidence typically preceded by anomalous research findings.)
That you would stoop to making a fallacious argument that scientific consensus is a fallacious argument speaks mountains of your motives here.
(December 4, 2016 at 1:52 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: As to controversy in the descent from darwin list, I know there are some which are argued have deceased since signing the list, and there are some who have asked to be removed from the list and have. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/03/ans...94331.html If there remains a significant number who do not wish to be on the list, who are they?
I never made that claim.
(December 4, 2016 at 1:52 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: You also bring up the topic of qualification of those who signed. I would be careful here, as a computer scientist, may have more to say than you think concerning evolution, and may have expertise which is valid concerning the changes required in the neo-darwinian model and also in detecting design from random noise.
Where the hell did you get an engineering degree? Clown school? With an engineering degree in electronics I am not qualified to give an opinion on materials or designs in mechanics. Likewise, a computer scientists is NEVER qualified to challenge a PhD in biology on matters of biology. Do you understand what the word "qualified" even means? No, a computer scientists is not qualified to speak on biology and genetics any more than a plumber is qualified to design a car engine. I don't need to "be careful" when stating cold, hard FACTS.
(December 4, 2016 at 1:52 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: You may also be making an assumption, that because their degree is in computer science, that they have not studied the relevant material or are making an informed decision.
I am not making that assumption, I simply don't care. What they have or have not studied is irrelevant. I studied the hell out of it and I am not qualified. You seem to be confused as to what constitutes "qualification". Open your own medical practice and you'll figure it out real quick.
(December 4, 2016 at 1:52 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: Similarly Faz Rana is listed under his major of chemistry. Now the case could be made that chemistry has quite a bit to do with evolution (specifically darwinian evolution), but this also ignores that fact, that his focus has been in bio-chemistry, and it was this study, that lead him away from evolutionary theory. For more on chemistry concerns in evolution see here ( http://www.uncommondescent.com/intellige...e-details/ )
You are focusing on the minutia here because the "big picture" doesn't agree with you. And you are making an assumption that his study in biochemistry is what lead him to disbelieve evolution when, in fact, he almost certainly already had his mystical creationist beliefs BEFORE studying chemistry. Someone with a degree in biochemistry is qualified to speak on matters biological, including evolution. But one drop of fresh water in the sea does not mean the sea is "wrong".
(December 4, 2016 at 1:52 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: This brings up a last point concerning the list, their is a difference in the description on the list. The Descent from Darwin list, focuses more narrowly on the darwinian (or neo-darwinian) model. One can believe in common descent, and still reject the neo-darwinian explanation. I was reading the other day, where Larry Moran say's, that he would sign the list, but believes that it would be misconstrued as supporting creationism. The list of Steve's (I believe) only mentions evolution, in which depending on the meaning, I may agree, I may be skeptical, or I may disagree. I think that is an issue, in that evolution can have different meanings, and often a bait and switch is used, to take one meaning, which has very little controversy, and then transfer that to other meanings, where there is more controversy.
"Evolution" does have many meanings, convoluted by those who oppose "the theory of evolution", which is a singular, well-defined thing. It is a bait and switch, but not by scientists. The theory of evolution covers the whole of what you're talking about here.
(December 4, 2016 at 1:52 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: Do you think that if there is scientific information, which weakens the case for evolution, that it should not be taught along with the evidence for it?
No. Prevailing theory is what should be taught to school children. Anyone can claim that they have "scientific information which weakens the case" for some science. In fact, that is EXACTLY what ID proponents did, EVEN THOUGH it was in reality creationism in disguise. There was a smoking gun, irrefutable proof that ID was creationism repackaged. The problem you run into is, what constitutes "scientific information"? Who determines that? Apparently religious organizations with a vested interest in refuting the science and computer scientists with no related training. What is the purpose of teaching this "scientific information" to children? Quark theory was first proposed in 1964, but when I went to high school in the '80s there was nobody saying that I should be taught quark theory along side electron theory because some believed the electron wasn't the smallest particle. And today, kids ARE taught quark theory and they are NOT taught, as I was, that the electron is the smallest particle. Why is that? Because IT WAS NOT IMPORTANT to me, a high school student, to know and understand that the information I was being given may be outdated and showed to be wrong in 20 years. Electron theory worked fine for what I would use it for in my classes. I was a high school kid, not a particle physicist. I didn't need to know, nobody cared that I didn't know, I wasn't qualified to determine which was correct and I would STILL be in high school if I had to learn about every competing theory out there.
So your question is really a dishonest one. It's really special pleading in disguise. 30 years from now quark theory may be deposed, or even relativity. There are competing theories. But evolution is the only science you care about, the only one "special" enough to deserve a deeper look, specifically into any and every competing "theory", including and especially those on the very fringe of the subject. You're asking if I think, specifically, "negative arguments" for evolution should be taught and, not, I do not think non-scientific arguments should be taught in science class. There IS NO competing theory for evolution. There is nothing. ID is not a scientific theory, it is creationism. That is as plain as the nose on your face. True, it talks about the "designer" instead of the "creator". But would you go to the middle of the Pacific Ocean with me on a DESIGN for a rock-solid boat, the two of us floating around on a bunch of pages filled with the most beautiful design for a boat you've ever seen? Design is pointless, meaningless without creation. And it is insinuated, if not outright said, that this designer is also the creator. From the book, Of Pandas and People I take this:
Quote:Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact. Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, wings, etc.
Various forms of life "began abruptly". Does that sound like what happens when you "design" something? Does my boat "begin abruptly" when I "design" it? The very definition of ID is clearly talking about creation, which IS NOT SCIENCE.
So your question, should "scientific information which weakens the case for evolution be taught", presumably to school children, is answered with a resounding "NO!" for many, many reasons. It's not taught with literally ANY OTHER science, nor is anyone proposing it should be. This "scientific information" comes, not from "scientific" sources, but religious sources. A high school class is not the proper forum for debating the validity of a scientific theory. And ID is attempting to bypass the scientific community altogether and be taught directly without due process or peer review. There is no reason to teach this garbage in high school any more than there is reason to teach that an alien named Xenu dropped human souls into a volcano on earth and those souls escaped, flew up the asses of monkeys and that caused evolution into humans.
Have you ever noticed all the drug commercials on TV lately? Why is it the side effects never include penile enlargement or super powers? Side effects may include super powers or enlarged penis which may become permanent with continued use. Stop taking Killatol immediately and consult your doctor if you experience penis enlargement of more than 3 inches, laser vision, superhuman strength, invulnerability, the ability to explode heads with your mind or time travel. Killatoll is not for everyone, especially those who already have convertibles or vehicles of ridiculous size to supplement penis size.
(November 29, 2016 at 1:06 pm)Orochi Wrote: And there is only ONE scientist qualified to speak on it academically who I know of who supports intelligent design. That is Michael Behe. During the Dover trial he was forced to admit on the stand that by the definition of "science" he had to use to include intelligent design as being a science, astrology would also be a science. The study of what kind of day I would have based on the stars in the sky on the day I was born is science. Intelligent design is textbook special pleading. We need to lower scientific standards to allow this to be a science because evolution hurts my feelings.
I realized that I forgot to comment about this.
I had not heard this quote; I have browsed over the conclusions and generals of the Dover case, but haven't really reviewed it all in depth. Most of it, I didn't find pertaining to Intelligent Design; but the individual case, and I would likely ruled against the school in this case as well.
However; as to your quote.
Welcome to the problem of the demarcation of Science.
I was curious, so I looked up the definition that he gave.
Behe Wrote:Under my definition, a scientific theory is a proposed explanation which focuses or points to physical, observable data and logical inferences.
I would largely agree with that definition. (I would encourage you to look up dictionary definitions and compare as well).
But then again, I don't define "science" as what works, or what is true, or based on it's conclusion. I think that science deals with the method and subject of inquiry.
I don't think that if two groups of scientist are studying the same topic, and come to different conclusions (sometimes from the same experiments), that at least one of them are no longer preforming science (or should not be called scientists. I also don't think that what was once considered science, because of consensus, suddenly becomes not science, as new information is. Perhaps the definition may change and things need to be re-evaluated; but whatever it was, hasn't changed at all.
Behe Further States Wrote:There are many things throughout the history of science which we now think to be incorrect which nonetheless would fit that -- which would fit that definition. Yes, astrology is in fact one, and so is the ether theory of the propagation of light, and many other -- many other theories as well.
So in saying that it meets the definition; does not mean that it is good science. I think that the contention could be made, that the inferences made by astrology also don't meet that definition (Behe was mistaken in saying that it did).
In light of this, I find your argument "the stand that by the definition of "science" he had to use to include intelligent design as being a science, astrology would also be a science" to be a little self serving and not entirely accurate.
(November 29, 2016 at 1:06 pm)Orochi Wrote: And there is only ONE scientist qualified to speak on it academically who I know of who supports intelligent design. That is Michael Behe. During the Dover trial he was forced to admit on the stand that by the definition of "science" he had to use to include intelligent design as being a science, astrology would also be a science. The study of what kind of day I would have based on the stars in the sky on the day I was born is science. Intelligent design is textbook special pleading. We need to lower scientific standards to allow this to be a science because evolution hurts my feelings.
I realized that I forgot to comment about this.
I had not heard this quote; I have browsed over the conclusions and generals of the Dover case, but haven't really reviewed it all in depth. Most of it, I didn't find pertaining to Intelligent Design; but the individual case, and I would likely ruled against the school in this case as well.
However; as to your quote.
Welcome to the problem of the demarcation of Science.
I was curious, so I looked up the definition that he gave.
Behe Wrote:Under my definition, a scientific theory is a proposed explanation which focuses or points to physical, observable data and logical inferences.
I would largely agree with that definition. (I would encourage you to look up dictionary definitions and compare as well).
But then again, I don't define "science" as what works, or what is true, or based on it's conclusion. I think that science deals with the method and subject of inquiry.
Scientists don't define science as what is true either. The problem with the definition is that he snuck in "logical inferences" and changed "physical explanation" to "physical data". He took out the part where the study of "nature" has to have a "natural" explanation, the part which says anything "supernatural" is not science.
(December 6, 2016 at 3:44 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: I don't think that if two groups of scientist are studying the same topic, and come to different conclusions (sometimes from the same experiments), that at least one of them are no longer preforming science (or should not be called scientists. I also don't think that what was once considered science, because of consensus, suddenly becomes not science, as new information is. Perhaps the definition may change and things need to be re-evaluated; but whatever it was, hasn't changed at all.
Nobody is saying that is the case. You are confusing the issue here. In the case nobody said anything was "no longer science". They mentioned the ether theory of light as a "discarded" theory, not something which used to be science but isn't any more. There is no definition change needed, so long as we change the definitions back to what they were and from what you just changed them to.
(December 6, 2016 at 3:44 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote:
Behe Further States Wrote:There are many things throughout the history of science which we now think to be incorrect which nonetheless would fit that -- which would fit that definition. Yes, astrology is in fact one, and so is the ether theory of the propagation of light, and many other -- many other theories as well.
So in saying that it meets the definition; does not mean that it is good science. I think that the contention could be made, that the inferences made by astrology also don't meet that definition (Behe was mistaken in saying that it did).
In light of this, I find your argument "the stand that by the definition of "science" he had to use to include intelligent design as being a science, astrology would also be a science" to be a little self serving and not entirely accurate.
This is where "logical inferences" get us into trouble. You are rewording everything which was said to make it say something entirely different. Nobody was talking about "good science" here, they were talking about just plain "science". And unless you have a PhD in something better than biochemistry I don't think you're qualified to determine that Behe was mistaken, nor am I. That's why I count on the opinions of just about every other scientists everywhere to form my own opinion.
You seem to be purposely confusing discarded scientific theory and astrology, something which, before Behe's redefining what "science" is was NEVER, EVER considered to be any form of "science". Astrology is not a defunct scientific theory. It is a belief system. It has never been held as being scientific in any way. So to suddenly change the definition of science to include what has ALWAYS been known as a pseudoscience, that is very, very significant, a significance which you are doing quite the dance to downplay.
Have you ever noticed all the drug commercials on TV lately? Why is it the side effects never include penile enlargement or super powers? Side effects may include super powers or enlarged penis which may become permanent with continued use. Stop taking Killatol immediately and consult your doctor if you experience penis enlargement of more than 3 inches, laser vision, superhuman strength, invulnerability, the ability to explode heads with your mind or time travel. Killatoll is not for everyone, especially those who already have convertibles or vehicles of ridiculous size to supplement penis size.
Quote:don't think that if two groups of scientist are studying the same topic, and come to different conclusions (sometimes from the same experiments), that at least one of them are no longer preforming science (or should not be called scientists
BS
One group is examining the evidence and coming to unbiased scientific conclusion the other are religious fanatics in lab coats manipulating and deceiving with ideological goals in mind
There is no comparison
Seek strength, not to be greater than my brother, but to fight my greatest enemy -- myself.
Quote:don't think that if two groups of scientist are studying the same topic, and come to different conclusions (sometimes from the same experiments), that at least one of them are no longer preforming science (or should not be called scientists
BS
One group is examining the evidence and coming to unbiased scientific conclusion the other are religious fanatics in lab coats manipulating and deceiving with ideological goals in mind
There is no comparison
I completely missed that the "two groups" he was referring to here were "almost every scientist everywhere" and "totally not scientists".
Have you ever noticed all the drug commercials on TV lately? Why is it the side effects never include penile enlargement or super powers? Side effects may include super powers or enlarged penis which may become permanent with continued use. Stop taking Killatol immediately and consult your doctor if you experience penis enlargement of more than 3 inches, laser vision, superhuman strength, invulnerability, the ability to explode heads with your mind or time travel. Killatoll is not for everyone, especially those who already have convertibles or vehicles of ridiculous size to supplement penis size.
December 6, 2016 at 5:37 pm (This post was last modified: December 6, 2016 at 5:38 pm by RoadRunner79.)
(December 6, 2016 at 5:02 pm)Asmodee Wrote:
(December 6, 2016 at 4:51 pm)Orochi Wrote: BS
One group is examining the evidence and coming to unbiased scientific conclusion the other are religious fanatics in lab coats manipulating and deceiving with ideological goals in mind
There is no comparison
I completely missed that the "two groups" he was referring to here were "almost every scientist everywhere" and "totally not scientists".
I missed it too! I thought I was just talking in general!
(December 6, 2016 at 5:02 pm)Asmodee Wrote: I completely missed that the "two groups" he was referring to here were "almost every scientist everywhere" and "totally not scientists".
I missed it too! I thought I was just talking in general!
My mistake.
Have you ever noticed all the drug commercials on TV lately? Why is it the side effects never include penile enlargement or super powers? Side effects may include super powers or enlarged penis which may become permanent with continued use. Stop taking Killatol immediately and consult your doctor if you experience penis enlargement of more than 3 inches, laser vision, superhuman strength, invulnerability, the ability to explode heads with your mind or time travel. Killatoll is not for everyone, especially those who already have convertibles or vehicles of ridiculous size to supplement penis size.
(August 21, 2016 at 11:49 am)The_Empress Wrote: If you haven't seen this, get ready to rage:
I'm embarrassed to admit how much of this I actually got through, considering the entirety of the conversation can be summed up as a reoccuring cycle of "show me the evidence" ... "here's the evidence" ... "nope not evidence, show me the evidence".... "here's other evidence" ... etc
(December 6, 2016 at 7:27 pm)Aristocatt Wrote: I'm embarrassed to admit how much of this I actually got through, considering the entirety of the conversation can be summed up as a reoccuring cycle of "show me the evidence" ... "here's the evidence" ... "nope not evidence, show me the evidence".... "here's other evidence" ... etc
![[Image: Richard+dawkins+presents+the+evidence+pl...480690.jpg]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=static.fjcdn.com%2Fpictures%2FRichard%2Bdawkins%2Bpresents%2Bthe%2Bevidence%2Bplot%2Btwist%2Bwendy%2Bwright%2Bis_0bc7d5_4480690.jpg)
